>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:11:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> justification: this is not a flaw in the policy, at best, this may be
>> a proposal to change policy to codifying, in my opinion, a less
>> desirable behaviour, and should be treated like any other proposal
Anthony> For heaven's sake, does someone have to disagree with _EVERYTHING_?
Cause we can think, and heaven forbid, sometimes even form
opinions, and not always have the same opinions as you do?
>> Sorry, this is a bug in those packages.
Anthony> No, it is not.
Is too.
>> dpkg has always had
>> the correct behavour of not reinstalling conffiles that are removed;
>> and so do packages managing configuration files using ucf.
Anthony> That's really great. The reason some packages _don't_ use
Anthony> dpkg or ucf for managing their configuration files is
Anthony> because dpkg's and ucf's behaviour is _not_ always
Anthony> desirable. That's an utterly bogus line of argument, and an
Anthony> absolutely _meaningless_ one -- it's making policy for
Anthony> policy's sake rather than because it actually benefits
Anthony> anyone.
Bull shit. Give me one example where you can determine, up on
high, that your world view always trumps the local human decision. So
far, you have labelled my line of reasoning as bogus. Fine then.
>> Policy, while documenting practice for the most part, should
>> not recommend or condone broken behavour just because packages are
>> broken.
Anthony> The. Packages. Are. Not. Broken. It's that simple.
Are too. I can descend to your level of argument, nyah nyah.
Anthony> How many times have you found base-passwd recreating
Anthony> /etc/passwd and /etc/group a nuisance? Never? Funny that.
If I ever remove those files, I would too find it
annoying. Funny what? When I create a himeypot, and remove
inetd.conf, I do not want to be second guessed and have my decision
thwarted.
We are designing for the intelligent operator, not the least
common moronic denominator.
Anthony> Why the fuck do we have to have a debate about this?
Because not all of us are cognizant fo the fact htat you have
ascended to heaven and are now passing codas to us mere mortals.
Grow the fuck up.
manoj
--
Real software engineers don't like the idea of some inexplicable and
greasy hardware several aisles away that may stop working at any
moment. They have a great distrust of hardware people, and wish that
systems could be virtual at *___all* levels. They would like
personal computers (you know no one's going to trip over something
and kill your DFA in mid-transit), except that they need 8 megabytes
to run their Correctness Verification Aid packages.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
